$1.5M Payment to Harborside Discrimination Claims

Harborside, a California cannabis company, agreed to pay $1.5 million to resolve a years-old discrimination lawsuit.

Details of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Court: Superior Court of California, Alameda County

Case No.: RG18908395

The Plaintiff: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

The plaintiff, Scott Moothery, is an African American, former employee who alleges he was consistently berated and harassed on the job about his age and his race. In 2015 when Moothery was hired as Harborside’s bookkeeper, he was in his 70s. According to the lawsuit originally filed in 2018, Moothery was promoted multiple times, and received praise for his work, but was fired after he complained about the treatment he received from Harborside’s controller. According to the lawsuit, Moothery was one of five employees of color out of 120 staffers at Harborside. The plaintiff sought $1.13 million in damages. The company agreed to pay a settlement higher than the amount the plaintiff sought in order to resolve all the claims.

The Defendant: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

The Defendant in the case is California cannabis company Harborside or FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al. Harborside claims they settled to avoid the additional costs related to moving forward with the suit. The lawsuit has seen active litigation since the original filing in 2018. According to the company, the $1.5 million will be paid out in one installment.

The History of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Moothery claims the issues at work started when Peter Moran started work as the company’s controller. According to the plaintiff, Moran screamed at him in the office, berated him about supposed failures, assigned him tasks unrelated to his job, threatened to replace him, left him out of meetings, criticized his work in conversations with coworkers, etc. In 2016, Moothery complained about the treatment he was receiving to human resources, advising them that the treatment was unique in comparison to the way other employees were treated. According to the lawsuit, a few days later Moothery was fired.

Overview of the Case: Moothery v. FLRish Retail Management and Security Services LLC et al

Moothery's suit brought claims of discrimination, retaliation, defamation, harassment, wrongful termination, etc. According to court records, the settlement deal was officially struck in court June 4th, 2021, just a few weeks before the case was scheduled for trial.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Unlikely to Grant Uber’s Bid to Toss Lawsuit Claiming Racial Bias

A California federal judge appears unlikely to toss a former Uber driver’s lawsuit claiming his firing stemmed from a racially biased rating system.

Details of the Case: Thomas Liu et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-07499

The Plaintiff in the Case: Liu v. Uber

A former Uber driver, Thomas Liu, is from Hawaii and of Asian descent. Liu filed a suit against his former employer, Uber, claiming discrimination in fall of 2020. Liu alleged Uber “deactivated” him in October 2015 due to his rating in the app; which fell below the standard set by the ride-sharing giant. The star-rating system in use by Uber allows passengers to rate their drivers on a scale of one to five stars (with five being the best rating). Drivers are required to maintain a certain level star rating determined by Uber to avoid deactivation. In March 2021, the judge tossed the complaint because it was “sparse and poorly drafted.” After amending the complaint, Liu added disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under California state law. Uber again moved to have the suit tossed in April 2021. In June 2021, the judge appeared to be allowing Liu’s disparate impact claim, but agreed with the Defendant that the disparate treatment claim should be tossed.

The Defendant in the Case: Liu v. Uber

Uber's counsel argued that the plaintiff failed to connect his personal experience of alleged racial discrimination as a driver for ride-sharing giant, Uber and the impact that discrimination had on his rating to the argument. They also argued that the social science article* Liu cited in the amended complaint is conclusory. However, the judge disagreed - stating he did not find the article conclusory. Instead he noted that there appears to be a body of research finding discriminatory terminations may result from online marketplaces with employment hinging on consumer-sourced rating systems. The judge also pointed out that when Uber defended its decision to disallow tipping of drivers, they acknowledged that passengers’ tipping behaviors were influenced by bias.

* In the amended complaint, Liu cited a 2016 paper titled "Discriminating Tastes: Customer Ratings as Vehicles for Bias," which suggests that consumer-sourced rating systems, like the star rating system used by Uber, are highly likely to be influenced by bias, including by factors such as race.

Does Uber’s Star-Rating Determining Eligibility of Drivers Allege Discrimination?

While the case is not yet decided, the California federal judge seemed unlikely to grant Uber’s bid to toss a racial bias suit during the June 2021 remote hearing. The judge said it seemed the driver’s allegation that his termination was based on a rating system that disparately targets minorities appeared plausible. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of Uber drivers who either lost their position or risked the loss of their position due to poor ratings from passengers.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SpaceX Faces Claims of Hiring Discrimination Based on Citizenship Status

SpaceX, the well known space exploration company owned by Elon Musk, faces claims of hiring discrimination. Allegedly, the rocket company discriminated against applicants due to citizenship status by refusing to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Details of the Case: U.S. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:21-mc-00043

The Defendant in the Case:

The Defendant in the case, SpaceX, is owned by Elon Musk. In May of 2020, Fabian Hunter, a dual citizen of both Australia and Canada, filed a discrimination complaint against SpaceX regarding their hiring practices. An investigation ensued to discover whether or not SpaceX engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on applicants’ citizenship status. In particular, it’s alleged that SpaceX refused to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Allegations Made Against SpaceX:

The DOJ filed suit against SpaceX in January alleging that the company failed to comply with an October subpoena requiring the release of information regarding their standard hiring process. The court was asked to enforce compliance of the subpoena. For the purposes of the investigation, SpaceX was asked to provide company-wide I-9 data and documentation for newly hired employees. They did so, but only for approximately 3,500 employees, and without the appropriate supporting documentation (social security cards, driver’s licenses, green cards, etc.)

The U.S. Magistrate’s Recommendation:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner recommended the request to enforce the subpoena against Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, be granted after determining the scope was not overly broad and did not create an undue burden for the company. As such, the California magistrate recommended SpaceX be made to comply with the investigations into discriminatory hiring procedures, including alleged unfair documentary practices in their employment eligibility verification.

If you have questions about California labor law and how it protects you during the hiring process, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Could New Law Ban NDAs Preventing Workers from Speaking Up About Discrimination & Abuse?

A proposed California law seeks to ban NDAs that prohibit California workers from speaking up about workplace discrimination and other forms of workplace abuse. 

Empowering California Workers to Speak Up About Alleged Workplace Discrimination: 

A bill introduced by a California state legislator could empower California employees who witness alleged discrimination in the workplace to speak up. The bill would ban specific provisions that are currently included in many confidentiality agreements or NDAs.  

California State Senator Backed Legislation Designed to Empower Workers:

The California State Senator behind the push for the proposed legislation was State Sen. Connie Leyva. The proposed legislation would ban non-disclosure agreements in cases of alleged workplace discrimination and harassment. Backers of the proposed legislation believe it could prevent California workers from having to sign settlements in a significant portion of workplace discrimination and abuse cases. The bill is being called the Silenced No More Act and is co-sponsored by Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association. 

Silencing a California Worker Because They’re a Victim is Unacceptable: 

SB 331 is intended to give California workers victimized in the workplace a voice. Silencing a worker because they are victimized in the workplace for any reason is not acceptable, and advocates of the Silenced No More Act are willing to push for change. Supporters believe the proposed legislation could create opportunities to help perpetrators responsible and prevent future instances of abuse in California workplaces. 

Proposed SB 331 Legislation Builds on #MeToo Era: 

The proposed SB 331 builds on existing California law known as the STAND Act, passed in 2018 at the peak of the #MeToo movement. The STAND Act bans agreements that block workers from speaking up about sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. Advocates of the new legislation argue that many NDAs protect perpetrators from taking responsibility for their actions and encourage future incidents by keeping alleged harassment and discrimination under wraps. NDAs tend to prevent workers from speaking up about abuse in their workplace. Also, the Silenced No More Act would allow California workers to speak out about other discriminatory claims, such as gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. The proposed legislation would also provide some protection for California workers being asked to sign NDAs as a condition to receive a severance package. 

If you need to discuss California labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a California workplace discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SpaceX Faces Hiring Discrimination Complaint

Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX is facing claims that their hiring practices are discriminatory against non-U.S. citizens. 

All the Details of the Case: United States of America v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., d/b/a SpaceX

Court: United States District Court for the central district of California

Case No.: 2:21-mc00043

The U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating SpaceX due to alleged company-wide discriminatory practices against non-U.S. citizens during the hiring process. The company was issued a subpoena for information, but court documents indicate that the company is not responding with the info. 

Alleged Discrimination During Hiring Process Based on Citizenship: 

The investigation started after the DOJ received an employment discrimination complaint from a non-U.S. citizen. The individual claimed that SpaceX discriminated against him due to his citizenship status. 

A Summary of the Case History: United States of America v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., d/b/a SpaceX

It is alleged that in March 2020, during an interview for a Technology Strategy Associate position at SpaceX, the company asked questions about the applicant’s citizenship status. Ultimately, the applicant was not hired. The applicant claims the company chose not to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for a judge to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena seeking hiring practice documentation. 

Allegations of Discrimination in the Hiring Process at SpaceX:

A non-U.S. citizen made the original allegation of discriminatory hiring practices. After interviewing for an open position at SpaceX, the applicant got in touch with the DOJ’s Employee Rights Section to complain about SpaceX’s hiring practices. The applicant alleges that he was not hired for the open SpaceX position because he was not a U.S. citizen. 

In response to the complaint, the DOJ started an investigation.  

Is the DOJ’s Request for Supporting Documentation Burdensome? 

According to the DOJ, they notified SpaceX of the open investigation on June 8, 2020, and requested the company provide information related to the standard hiring and employment eligibility verification process currently in use. Court documents indicate that SpaceX responded in August 2020, providing a Form I-9 spreadsheet with info about employees dating back through June 2019, but refused the DOJ’s requests for additional documentation like copies of SpaceX employees’ social security cards, driver’s licenses, and passports. They obtained a subpoena on October 7, 2020. After a petition to the DOJ administrative tribunal to dismiss the subpoena was denied, SpaceX was again ordered to comply. On December 11, 2020, SpaceX responded, stating that they would not provide additional documentation in response to the administrative subpoena. The IER argues the additional documentation is necessary as it will show the extent of non-U.S. citizen hires at the company, while SpaceX claims it is a burdensome request since they would allegedly need to retrieve each document manually.                        

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from workplace retaliation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation at Pinterest Lead to Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit

After agreeing to a settlement in a recent discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, Pinterest is facing more legal trouble. Another lawsuit is making its way through the courts claiming breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violation of 14(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the allegations in the lawsuit arise from an alleged systemic culture, policy, and practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

All the Details on the Case: Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island v. Silbermann, Sharp, Jordan, Levine, Rajaram, Reynolds, Wilson, Kilgore, Morgenfeld, and Pinterest, Inc. (Nominal Defendant)

Case Number: 3:20-cv-08438

Filed: Nov. 30, 2020

Court: Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, derivatively on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. 

Defendant: Benjamin Silbermann, Evan Sharp, Jeffrey Jordan, Jeremy Levine, Gokul Rajaram, Fredric Reynolds, Michelle Wilson, Leslie Kilgore, and Todd Morgenfeld, Defendants, and Pinterest, Inc., Nominal Defendant. 

Pinterest’s Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation in the Workplace: 

The shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in November 2020 in the Northern District of California against Pinterest, Inc. The social media platform is a visual discovery search engine used to collect ideas that went public in April 2019. The cited complaint alleges that the platform executives breached their fiduciary duties to the company by ignoring a systemic (and long-standing) culture of retaliation and discrimination. Allegedly, the company provided unequal salaries to females and racial minorities, and also failed to provide equal promotional opportunities for women based on experience and skill. 

Complaint Alleges Four Causes of Action Against Defendants:

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty

• Waste of Corporate Assets

• Abuse of Control

• Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14A-9

Plaintiffs claim that Pinterest’s top executives boardmembers engaged in, facilitated or knowingly ignored discrimination and retaliation against Pinterest employees who spoke up or attempted to challenge the White, male leadership clique. 

Revised Version of the Complaint Filed December 31, 2020:

After the district judge assigned ordered the parties involved to revise the “copious redactions” in the original complaint, a revised version was filed on December 31, 2020. In the revised complaint, certain allegations are now public including the claim that the Pinterest Compensation Committee was aware of the inconsistent pay practices in place at Pinterest, but did not take action to oversee any discriminatory pay complaints. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Pending 2021 Cases for the California Supreme Court

With several potentially significant pending cases scheduled to go before the California Supreme Court in 2021, California employers and employees should consider the possible implications. 

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC676917, Second Appellate District, April 7, 2020). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case, Ducksworth and Pollock, allege race discrimination, and one of the Plaintiffs, Pollock, also alleges sexual harassment. 

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case were long-time customer service representatives at Tri-Modal Distribution Services or Tri-Modal. Neither of the two plaintiffs was promoted, but other customer service representatives were promoted. The Plaintiffs claim they were looked over for promotions because of discriminatory practices against African Americans, and filed suit citing the same allegation against Tri-Modal and two staffing agencies, Scotts Labor Leasing Company, and Pacific Leasing. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The trial court granted summary judgment for Scotts and Pacific since they were not involved in Tri-Modal’s decision to promote or not promote any specific employee. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s summary judgment finding both staffing agencies free of liability for any discrimination claims based on promotion or failure to promote due to uninvolvement in staffing decisions at Tri-Modal. The district court also granted summary judgement for Tri-Modal’s Executive Vice President, overruling Pollock’s hearsay objection to a declaration. The district court concluded Pollock’s claims are barred because no administrative complaint was filed within one year of the incident (per Government Code Section 12960). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grants of summary judgment and held that the trial court concluded correctly regarding Government Code Section 12960. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts’ decisions, their decision could significantly increase liability for any discrimination allegations, particularly discrimination claims filed against joint employers like staffing agencies. Staffing agencies are typically not involved in day-to-day decisions regarding staffers they place at various clients’ operations, however, a dissenting opinion from the California Supreme Court on this case could mean more claims against California employers. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.